[PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: renames struct tstrRSSI and its members u8Index, u8Full

[PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: renames struct tstrRSSI and its members u8Index, u8Full

[Tahia Khan]

Fixes multiple camel case checks on struct tstrRSSI from checkpatch.pl:

Avoid CamelCase: <tstrRSSI>
Avoid CamelCase: <u8Full>
Avoid CamelCase: <u8Index>

Signed-off-by: Tahia Khan <tahia.khan@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h       |  8 ++++----
 drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c | 10 +++++-----
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h
index cff1698..5b65c4f 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h
@@ -70,9 +70,9 @@ enum connect_status {
 	CONNECT_STS_FORCE_16_BIT = 0xFFFF
 };
 
-struct tstrRSSI {
-	u8 u8Full;
-	u8 u8Index;
+struct tstr_RSSI {
+	u8 full;
+	u8 index;
 	s8 as8RSSI[NUM_RSSI];
 };
 
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ struct network_info {
 	u8 *ies;
 	u16 ies_len;
 	void *join_params;
-	struct tstrRSSI str_rssi;
+	struct tstr_RSSI str_rssi;
 	u64 tsf_hi;
 };
 
diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
index f7ce47c..56f133e 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
@@ -205,8 +205,8 @@ static u32 get_rssi_avg(struct network_info *network_info)
 {
 	u8 i;
 	int rssi_v = 0;
-	u8 num_rssi = (network_info->str_rssi.u8Full) ?
-		       NUM_RSSI : (network_info->str_rssi.u8Index);
+	u8 num_rssi = (network_info->str_rssi.full) ?
+		       NUM_RSSI : (network_info->str_rssi.index);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < num_rssi; i++)
 		rssi_v += network_info->str_rssi.as8RSSI[i];
@@ -346,13 +346,13 @@ static void add_network_to_shadow(struct network_info *pstrNetworkInfo,
 	} else {
 		ap_index = ap_found;
 	}
-	rssi_index = last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.u8Index;
+	rssi_index = last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.index;
 	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.as8RSSI[rssi_index++] = pstrNetworkInfo->rssi;
 	if (rssi_index == NUM_RSSI) {
 		rssi_index = 0;
-		last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.u8Full = 1;
+		last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.full = 1;
 	}
-	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.u8Index = rssi_index;
+	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.index = rssi_index;
 	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].rssi = pstrNetworkInfo->rssi;
 	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].cap_info = pstrNetworkInfo->cap_info;
 	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].ssid_len = pstrNetworkInfo->ssid_len;
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: renames struct tstrRSSI and its members u8Index, u8Full

[Arend Van Spriel]

On 22-2-2017 18:14, Tahia Khan wrote:
> Fixes multiple camel case checks on struct tstrRSSI from checkpatch.pl:
> 
> Avoid CamelCase: <tstrRSSI>
> Avoid CamelCase: <u8Full>
> Avoid CamelCase: <u8Index>

Just a generic remark that may help you with other changes you will be
making in the linux kernel. Warnings from checkpatch.pl and other tools
are useful, but try to look further than just fixing a warning.
Understand what the code is doing is just as important.

> Signed-off-by: Tahia Khan <tahia.khan@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h       |  8 ++++----
>  drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c | 10 +++++-----
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h
> index cff1698..5b65c4f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h
> @@ -70,9 +70,9 @@ enum connect_status {
>  	CONNECT_STS_FORCE_16_BIT = 0xFFFF
>  };
>  
> -struct tstrRSSI {
> -	u8 u8Full;
> -	u8 u8Index;
> +struct tstr_RSSI {
> +	u8 full;
> +	u8 index;
>  	s8 as8RSSI[NUM_RSSI];

So you have a struct here with three members and you choose to only
change the first two. What do you think about the third one just by
looking at it. And what about the name of the struct. What does 'tstr' mean?

>  };
>  
> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ struct network_info {
>  	u8 *ies;
>  	u16 ies_len;
>  	void *join_params;
> -	struct tstrRSSI str_rssi;
> +	struct tstr_RSSI str_rssi;
>  	u64 tsf_hi;
>  };
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> index f7ce47c..56f133e 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> @@ -205,8 +205,8 @@ static u32 get_rssi_avg(struct network_info *network_info)
>  {
>  	u8 i;
>  	int rssi_v = 0;
> -	u8 num_rssi = (network_info->str_rssi.u8Full) ?
> -		       NUM_RSSI : (network_info->str_rssi.u8Index);
> +	u8 num_rssi = (network_info->str_rssi.full) ?
> +		       NUM_RSSI : (network_info->str_rssi.index);

so struct tstr_RSSI is really a rssi history buffer so maybe naming it
as such makes it clearer, ie. struct rssi_history_buffer.

>  	for (i = 0; i < num_rssi; i++)
>  		rssi_v += network_info->str_rssi.as8RSSI[i];
> @@ -346,13 +346,13 @@ static void add_network_to_shadow(struct network_info *pstrNetworkInfo,
>  	} else {
>  		ap_index = ap_found;
>  	}
> -	rssi_index = last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.u8Index;
> +	rssi_index = last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.index;
>  	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.as8RSSI[rssi_index++] = pstrNetworkInfo->rssi;
>  	if (rssi_index == NUM_RSSI) {
>  		rssi_index = 0;
> -		last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.u8Full = 1;
> +		last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.full = 1;

So the 'full' member is actually a bool and you might type it as such.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Arend

>  	}
> -	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.u8Index = rssi_index;
> +	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.index = rssi_index;
>  	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].rssi = pstrNetworkInfo->rssi;
>  	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].cap_info = pstrNetworkInfo->cap_info;
>  	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].ssid_len = pstrNetworkInfo->ssid_len;
> 

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: renames struct tstrRSSI and its members u8Index, u8Full

[Tahia Khan]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 08:50:31PM +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> On 22-2-2017 18:14, Tahia Khan wrote:
> > Fixes multiple camel case checks on struct tstrRSSI from checkpatch.pl:
> > 
> > Avoid CamelCase: <tstrRSSI>
> > Avoid CamelCase: <u8Full>
> > Avoid CamelCase: <u8Index>
> 
> Just a generic remark that may help you with other changes you will be
> making in the linux kernel. Warnings from checkpatch.pl and other tools
> are useful, but try to look further than just fixing a warning.
> Understand what the code is doing is just as important.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Tahia Khan <tahia.khan@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h       |  8 ++++----
> >  drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c | 10 +++++-----
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h
> > index cff1698..5b65c4f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/coreconfigurator.h
> > @@ -70,9 +70,9 @@ enum connect_status {
> >  	CONNECT_STS_FORCE_16_BIT = 0xFFFF
> >  };
> >  
> > -struct tstrRSSI {
> > -	u8 u8Full;
> > -	u8 u8Index;
> > +struct tstr_RSSI {
> > +	u8 full;
> > +	u8 index;
> >  	s8 as8RSSI[NUM_RSSI];
> 
> So you have a struct here with three members and you choose to only
> change the first two. What do you think about the third one just by
> looking at it. And what about the name of the struct. What does 'tstr' mean?
> 
> >  };
> >  
> > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ struct network_info {
> >  	u8 *ies;
> >  	u16 ies_len;
> >  	void *join_params;
> > -	struct tstrRSSI str_rssi;
> > +	struct tstr_RSSI str_rssi;
> >  	u64 tsf_hi;
> >  };
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > index f7ce47c..56f133e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > @@ -205,8 +205,8 @@ static u32 get_rssi_avg(struct network_info *network_info)
> >  {
> >  	u8 i;
> >  	int rssi_v = 0;
> > -	u8 num_rssi = (network_info->str_rssi.u8Full) ?
> > -		       NUM_RSSI : (network_info->str_rssi.u8Index);
> > +	u8 num_rssi = (network_info->str_rssi.full) ?
> > +		       NUM_RSSI : (network_info->str_rssi.index);
> 
> so struct tstr_RSSI is really a rssi history buffer so maybe naming it
> as such makes it clearer, ie. struct rssi_history_buffer.
> 
> >  	for (i = 0; i < num_rssi; i++)
> >  		rssi_v += network_info->str_rssi.as8RSSI[i];
> > @@ -346,13 +346,13 @@ static void add_network_to_shadow(struct network_info *pstrNetworkInfo,
> >  	} else {
> >  		ap_index = ap_found;
> >  	}
> > -	rssi_index = last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.u8Index;
> > +	rssi_index = last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.index;
> >  	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.as8RSSI[rssi_index++] = pstrNetworkInfo->rssi;
> >  	if (rssi_index == NUM_RSSI) {
> >  		rssi_index = 0;
> > -		last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.u8Full = 1;
> > +		last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.full = 1;
> 
> So the 'full' member is actually a bool and you might type it as such.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Regards,
> Arend
> 
> >  	}
> > -	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.u8Index = rssi_index;
> > +	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].str_rssi.index = rssi_index;
> >  	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].rssi = pstrNetworkInfo->rssi;
> >  	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].cap_info = pstrNetworkInfo->cap_info;
> >  	last_scanned_shadow[ap_index].ssid_len = pstrNetworkInfo->ssid_len;
> > 

Thanks for the feedback Arend, I really appreciate it. I've decided to go with
these changes in my follow-up patch request:

- rename tstrRSSI to 'rssi_history_buffer' as Aren suggested since it makes the
purpose of the struct clear
- remove Hungarian notation from all tstrRSSI members' names
- change type of u8Full to bool since it's only ever 1 or 0
- change name of as8RSSI to 'samples' since this buffer is only ever used to 
compute an average, and the "rssi" prefix is implied by the struct's name
- rename str_rssi to rssi_history in the network_info struct for clarity

Since my reasoning for these changes deviates from just "renaming to 
avoid camel casing" (as in the original checkpatch.pl warning), would it still 
make sense to submit all this in a single patch? I know my commit message
needs to change but I wonder if this is too much detail.

Tahia

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: renames struct tstrRSSI and its members u8Index, u8Full

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 20:50 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> On 22-2-2017 18:14, Tahia Khan wrote:
> > Fixes multiple camel case checks on struct tstrRSSI from checkpatch.pl:
[]
> Just a generic remark that may help you with other changes you will be
> making in the linux kernel. Warnings from checkpatch.pl and other tools
> are useful, but try to look further than just fixing a warning.
> Understand what the code is doing is just as important.

I'd assert understanding what the code is doing is
_more_ important.  Style consistency simply helps
improve the speed of a new reader's understanding.

Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: renames struct tstrRSSI and its members u8Index, u8Full

[Julia Lawall]

> Thanks for the feedback Arend, I really appreciate it. I've decided to go with
> these changes in my follow-up patch request:
>
> - rename tstrRSSI to 'rssi_history_buffer' as Aren suggested since it makes the
> purpose of the struct clear
> - remove Hungarian notation from all tstrRSSI members' names
> - change type of u8Full to bool since it's only ever 1 or 0
> - change name of as8RSSI to 'samples' since this buffer is only ever used to
> compute an average, and the "rssi" prefix is implied by the struct's name
> - rename str_rssi to rssi_history in the network_info struct for clarity
>
> Since my reasoning for these changes deviates from just "renaming to
> avoid camel casing" (as in the original checkpatch.pl warning), would it still
> make sense to submit all this in a single patch? I know my commit message
> needs to change but I wonder if this is too much detail.

I would strongly suggest not to do it all in a single patch.  Even if these
changes are not very complicated conceptually, there is always a chance of
doing things wrong.  Taking the problems one by one will improve the chance
that the result is correct.  Also, the results will be easier for you and
others to review if each patch only does one thing.  And easier to revert
if needed later if something goes wrong.

julia

Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: renames struct tstrRSSI and its members u8Index, u8Full

[Arend Van Spriel]

On 23-2-2017 8:08, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback Arend, I really appreciate it. I've decided to go with
>> these changes in my follow-up patch request:
>>
>> - rename tstrRSSI to 'rssi_history_buffer' as Aren suggested since it makes the
>> purpose of the struct clear
>> - remove Hungarian notation from all tstrRSSI members' names
>> - change type of u8Full to bool since it's only ever 1 or 0
>> - change name of as8RSSI to 'samples' since this buffer is only ever used to
>> compute an average, and the "rssi" prefix is implied by the struct's name
>> - rename str_rssi to rssi_history in the network_info struct for clarity
>>
>> Since my reasoning for these changes deviates from just "renaming to
>> avoid camel casing" (as in the original checkpatch.pl warning), would it still
>> make sense to submit all this in a single patch? I know my commit message
>> needs to change but I wonder if this is too much detail.
> 
> I would strongly suggest not to do it all in a single patch.  Even if these
> changes are not very complicated conceptually, there is always a chance of
> doing things wrong.  Taking the problems one by one will improve the chance
> that the result is correct.  Also, the results will be easier for you and
> others to review if each patch only does one thing.  And easier to revert
> if needed later if something goes wrong.

It is all related to cleaning up stuff in a single struct which I
consider "one thing" here. To me it looks a bit silly if you rename one
struct member when it is obvious that the other two need to be renamed
as well. The only somewhat sensible split I see here is: 1) rename the
struct itself, 2) rename the struct members, and 3) rename str_rssi
member in struct network_info.

Regards,
Arend

Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wilc1000: renames struct tstrRSSI and its members u8Index, u8Full

[Julia Lawall]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 'Arend Van Spriel' via outreachy-kernel wrote:

> On 23-2-2017 8:08, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> Thanks for the feedback Arend, I really appreciate it. I've decided to go with
> >> these changes in my follow-up patch request:
> >>
> >> - rename tstrRSSI to 'rssi_history_buffer' as Aren suggested since it makes the
> >> purpose of the struct clear
> >> - remove Hungarian notation from all tstrRSSI members' names
> >> - change type of u8Full to bool since it's only ever 1 or 0
> >> - change name of as8RSSI to 'samples' since this buffer is only ever used to
> >> compute an average, and the "rssi" prefix is implied by the struct's name
> >> - rename str_rssi to rssi_history in the network_info struct for clarity
> >>
> >> Since my reasoning for these changes deviates from just "renaming to
> >> avoid camel casing" (as in the original checkpatch.pl warning), would it still
> >> make sense to submit all this in a single patch? I know my commit message
> >> needs to change but I wonder if this is too much detail.
> >
> > I would strongly suggest not to do it all in a single patch.  Even if these
> > changes are not very complicated conceptually, there is always a chance of
> > doing things wrong.  Taking the problems one by one will improve the chance
> > that the result is correct.  Also, the results will be easier for you and
> > others to review if each patch only does one thing.  And easier to revert
> > if needed later if something goes wrong.
>
> It is all related to cleaning up stuff in a single struct which I
> consider "one thing" here. To me it looks a bit silly if you rename one
> struct member when it is obvious that the other two need to be renamed
> as well. The only somewhat sensible split I see here is: 1) rename the
> struct itself, 2) rename the struct members, and 3) rename str_rssi
> member in struct network_info.

OK.  I guess I mainly saw the change of type as being different.

julia


>
> Regards,
> Arend
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/1ffdd756-aaa4-5e1e-b72f-3e5d1f2daeb2%40broadcom.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>